A recent vote in the U.S. House of Representatives seemed straightforward enough: government computers must block viewing or downloading porn.

After all, a series of news reports have highlighted, in scandalous detail, how some financial regulators earning six-figure salaries were watching porn at work as Wall Street imploded. So, as it turns out, did employees of the National Science Foundation and the Interior Department–including ones who were supposed to be inspecting oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

But the exact wording of the legislation (PDF) that the House approved last week by a 239-to-182 vote could, civil libertarians warn, go too far and unreasonably infringe on Americans’ First Amendment rights.

The measure, which arrived in the form of an 111-page amendment sponsored by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, says on the second-to-last page: “None of the funds made available in this act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and exchanging of pornography.”

That choice of wording could sweep in government contractors as well as federal agencies, says John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C.

“It really is breathtaking how broad the reach of this is, and will lead to constitutional problems and economic problems,” Morris said. If a mom-and-pop business has a contract to deliver toilet paper to a military base that includes overhead, he suggested, they’d have to pay to filter their computer networks even though the owner is the only one who uses it.

If Rep. Obey’s proposal were limited to federal networks, criticism would likely be muted–after all, some agencies already block “inappropriate” material. But the idea of extending the filtering requirement to military and civilian contractors makes it far more controversial.

The ACLU is no less critical. “The Supreme Court has made clear that government attempts to eliminate sexually explicit speech on the Internet raise serious free speech concerns,” said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office. “Congress should not pass such vague and potentially speech-restrictive provisions that are constitutionally suspect.”

Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for Rep. Obey, did did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. No hearings appear to have been held on how the porn-filtering requirement would be implemented.

Antiporn groups, however, say there are no constitutional concerns and have generally applauded the requirement, which has been glued onto a bill that is known on Capitol Hill as the “FY10 Disaster Supplemental.” That means it’s one of those almost-certain-to-pass spending measures allocating funds for what Obey’s officecalls “pressing” needs, including $37 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, $3 billion for Haiti, $1 billion for summer jobs for youth, and $180 million for “innovative technology energy loans.”

“I don’t think the courts would have a problem with it,” said Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council. “I think they would view it as constitutional.”

McClusky added: “Most Americans wouldn’t even think about the constitutionality if they hear that government workers or government contract workers are surfing porn.”

Patrick Trueman, the former chief of the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section who now does legal work for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, says the government can easily say that while working on a federal contract, there can be no porn surfing–or even card-playing–because taxpayers have a “right to get their money’s worth from contractors.”

Trueman said he has not had a chance to review the appropriations bill. He added, however, that the legislation would be more constitutionally problematic if the government says in order to get a contract, a business “must filter out all porn for all employees–even those not on a government contract.”

One argument that antiporn groups have in their favor is the history of the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which Congress enacted a decade ago also as part of a must-pass bill to fund the federal government. CIPA said that public schools and libraries that receive federal funds must adopt policies that protect “against access” to certain sexually explicit Web sites.

The ACLU and the American Library Association sued, claiming that CIPA was unconstitutional. But in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the law, saying that while buggy filtering software could block legitimate Web sites, library patrons have the option to ask that it be disabled. (That requirement, part of CIPA, is not part of Rep. Obey’s legislation.)

On the other hand, the Obey bill uses the term “pornography,” which is not as specific as the legal terms used in CIPA. Salon.com has proudly featured not-quite-safe-for-work photographs; should the government’s filters deem them news, art, or porn?

Cris Logan, director of communications for the venerable anti-porn group Enough is Enough, says her group is familiar with and supports the Obey amendment, which is now awaiting a vote in the Senate.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if (federal agencies) didn’t have the necessary software in place to block employees’ easy access to pornography,” Logan said. “We set healthy parameters, guidelines and restrictions regarding appropriate use of taxpayer funds, and this is no excuse.”

If you look at what’s on the Internet today, Logan added, you’ll find “close-ups of graphic sex acts, lewd exhibition of the genitals and deviant activities such as group sex, excretory functions, and the like…Pornography addiction in this country is skyrocketing, and it’s having a direct impact on the productivity of those who use it.”

I hope they block it on all public library computers also. I have no issue allowing adults to view adult porn on their own computers, but I should not have a dime of my money going to support someone else's fetishes!

lacarnut

08-29-2010, 09:47 PM

I have a remedy for those watching porn and not doing their jobs. Excessive viewing gets you fired. That's how it worked when I worked for the state of LA. Congress does not need to pass a stupid law. The Governor or the President can pass an executive order. An employee does not have a first amendment right to watch porn. Libertairians that think so have a few screws loose.

PoliCon

08-29-2010, 09:55 PM

An employee does not have a first amendment right to watch porn.Especially not on a company computer or on company time.

hazlnut

08-29-2010, 10:48 PM

Poli:

I agree with you on this -- we should file it under "Can't believe this wasn't already the rule"

While they're at it, block Facebook and Youtube. Seriously. Private companies do this.

Government employees should only have access to the internet as needed.

My buddy who works for the State AG says he can't access youtube from his office. Good.

PoliCon

08-29-2010, 10:50 PM

Please don't agree with me. It makes me feel dirty somehow.

Wei Wu Wei

08-30-2010, 10:50 AM

I hope they block it on all public library computers also. I have no issue allowing adults to view adult porn on their own computers, but I should not have a dime of my money going to support someone else's fetishes!

Of course not.

Public libraries are icons of free speech and free access. Nothing protected by free speech should be restricted in a library.

It is on State of Michigan computers, but there are ways around it. I don't know them, but a male coworker got fired a year or so ago for looking at porn online.

m00

08-30-2010, 09:50 PM

I have a remedy for those watching porn and not doing their jobs. Excessive viewing gets you fired. That's how it worked when I worked for the state of LA. Congress does not need to pass a stupid law. The Governor or the President can pass an executive order. An employee does not have a first amendment right to watch porn. Libertairians that think so have a few screws loose.

Bingo.

Why not just fire people who misuse their network privileges, for whatever reason? It's what we do in the private sector.

My feeling is that government workers will just switch from watching porn all day to browsing facebook all day.

PoliCon

08-30-2010, 09:58 PM

Bingo.

Why not just fire people who misuse their network privileges, for whatever reason? It's what we do in the private sector.

My feeling is that government workers will just switch from watching porn all day to browsing facebook all day.

They should put the same filters on Government computers that the government makes schools use.

malloc

08-30-2010, 09:59 PM

An employee does not have a first amendment right to watch porn. Libertairians that think so have a few screws loose.

I don't know what Libertarian would think this way, I'm certainly not one of them. You might be confusing real libertarians with Bill Maher "Libertarians". Sure the employee on his own time, property, bandwidth and equipment has every right to watch porn. On time, property, bandwidth or equipment the company bought and paid for, they have no such rights.

"When the question is about rights, the answer lies in the owner of the property."
--Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate.

m00

08-30-2010, 10:03 PM

They should put the same filters on Government computers that the government makes schools use.

I don't know what these are. But we have filters at work. They are called managers. Manager's walk around and get to know their direct reports, and glance at monitors when passing by. If you are surfing the web all day (doing anything not work related), this gets caught by the "filter" and an uncomfortable conversation might ensue.

CueSi

08-30-2010, 10:30 PM

I look at porn on my phone. Dumbasses. :p

~QC

Rockntractor

08-30-2010, 10:31 PM

I look at porn on my phone. Dumbasses. :p

~QC

Why?:confused:

CueSi

09-04-2010, 03:54 AM

Why?:confused:

Because I can... ;)

~QC

Sonnabend

09-04-2010, 05:21 AM

Block porn on government computers? Why not? They are there to WORK....oh wait...:D

Of course not.

Public libraries are icons of free speech and free access. Nothing protected by free speech should be restricted in a library.

Considering that library computers are accessed by CHILDREN, routine filters should be in place...again the same ones they use in schools.

"Free speech" does not apply, as many libraries are either GOVERNMENT run therefore under the same rules as government PC's, ir privately ownee din which case they have every right to block porn etc...